Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

leopard wrote:
the trouble GW has with grenades is they either make them useful, and then have to work out a way to give Nids a counter thats also useful, but then everyone has them so whats the point?

or they make them borderline useless for everyone

at this point I'd honestly get rid of them and just say the effect of such and the training to use them is baked into the stat lines and be done with it

I've been an advocate of this for years and completely agree. Before 8E they were essentially a 'feth Tyranids & Daemons' rule, and ever since they've been bloat.
They deserve the same level of rules representation as ammo reloads or wearing shoes, which is to say none.
Meltabombs can have a free pass by virtue of being a specialist upgrade rather than basic kit.

Absolutely despised grenade rules ever since I lost some WYSIWYG points in a local tournament for not having 2 sets on every single model and I'venever gotten over it.

Go back to 4th edition and make grenades cost points but also make them useful.

Units with improved capabilities due to wargear should pay more than those without.

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:
I think the new system is better than power level was. Power Level did not try and side-grade the upgrades. They HAVE tried to do that here. They missed a ton most of us would have caught, and they missed a few things most of us would have missed too. But that's a function of the old GW not the new system. Blame where the blame belongs.

You are confusing the balancing system with datasheet design. The fewer strict upgrades the game has the less terrible PL is, that doesn't change that PL is just pts with fewer abilities and you can have datasheets with sidegrades in both balancing systems. As we saw in 8th and 9th, PL has nothing to do with sidegrades, the greater amount of sidegrades in 10th has nothing to do with PL, GW could have made the exact same changes and still gave us pts.

They go hand in hand. You even make the point yourself while trying to argue against it. More Sidegrades makes PL style systems more functional. They know it. The last MFM in 9th was a step in that direction.

The last MFM in 9th did not increase the number of sidegrades, it just replaced pts with PL for some units.

Thus step in that direction, not finished product.

The only time when PL is good is when it is pts, when all options are sidegrades and would therefore cost 0 pts, PL is perfect as well because there is no upgrades to cost pts.

It continued into 10th and even went from the upgrades inside the unit to the various units themselves. Vanguard Vets went from paying for upgrades, to some upgrades like TH/SS, to everybody gets a bolt pistol and an "heirloom weapon". Sure sounds like a pretty easily connected set of dots: Options for points, a few options for points, all options the same price. Now, I'm not particularly fond of the result in this case, but the dots are there. You can see it in the Command Squad too, going from Company Vets who pay for everything, to company vets that pay for a few things - again Stormshields and Thunderhammers being a common theme in that MFM - to now the return of the three specialists with gear and bespokes, plus two guys with a smorgasbord of free choices for some tailoring.

What if GW had pts in 10th, what would you then have said about these changes? GW are trying to make sidegrades, not just to make PL as tolerable as possible, but because sidegrades are more interesting to them and some players such as yourself.

I don't think they would have made these datasheet changes without the system change. Their standard operating procedure under points was to shuffle the flavors of the month.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.

How is what we got different from a free beta?

It wasn't long enough, and it didn't include any meaningful feedback loop that would have ended early enough for any feedback to make it into changes to the printed material. The Points MFM released on 6/23. Leviathan delivered on what 6/24?

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.

How is what we got different from a free beta?

It wasn't long enough, and it didn't include any meaningful feedback loop that would have ended early enough for any feedback to make it into changes to the printed material. The Points MFM released on 6/23. Leviathan delivered on what 6/24?

You need the points for the beta, the beta started 24th June. The first revision is coming next month, so it seems to be going according to plan and there's 2 months before a codex at this point?

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.

How is what we got different from a free beta?

It wasn't long enough, and it didn't include any meaningful feedback loop that would have ended early enough for any feedback to make it into changes to the printed material. The Points MFM released on 6/23. Leviathan delivered on what 6/24?

You need the points for the beta, the beta started 24th June. The first revision is coming next month, so it seems to be going according to plan and there's 2 months before a codex at this point?

Its already too late, the Beta is over. The rulebooks are in Leviathan, and printed already.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.

How is what we got different from a free beta?

It wasn't long enough, and it didn't include any meaningful feedback loop that would have ended early enough for any feedback to make it into changes to the printed material. The Points MFM released on 6/23. Leviathan delivered on what 6/24?

You need the points for the beta, the beta started 24th June. The first revision is coming next month, so it seems to be going according to plan and there's 2 months before a codex at this point?

Its already too late, the Beta is over. The rulebooks are in Leviathan, and printed already.

Yes, but they have to start somewhere and that book purchase is entirely optional.

People actually still think that there's any capacity for changing Codexes at this late stage..?

Peak clown world.
They're already printed. It's too late. It's done-zo.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
People actually still think that there's any capacity for changing Codexes at this late stage..?

Peak clown world.
They're already printed. It's too late. It's done-zo.

The paper copies? No. The points after the fact? Absolutely.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
People actually still think that there's any capacity for changing Codexes at this late stage..?

Peak clown world.
They're already printed. It's too late. It's done-zo.

Nids and SM are almost certainly already printed. Mechanicus and Necrons... probably are. DA, Orks, Custodes, Tau and Chaos SM probably are not yet.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
People actually still think that there's any capacity for changing Codexes at this late stage..?

Peak clown world.
They're already printed. It's too late. It's done-zo.

They like being in denial about how fethed up their game has gotten.

Sunk cost fallacy in full display.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
People actually still think that there's any capacity for changing Codexes at this late stage..?

Peak clown world.
They're already printed. It's too late. It's done-zo.

They like being in denial about how fethed up their game has gotten.

Sunk cost fallacy in full display.

It's ok, instead I could just skulk around forums for games I don't like and have no investment in to insult people, that's a great look right?

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
People actually still think that there's any capacity for changing Codexes at this late stage..?

Peak clown world.
They're already printed. It's too late. It's done-zo.

They like being in denial about how fethed up their game has gotten.

Sunk cost fallacy in full display.

It's ok, instead I could just skulk around forums for games I don't like and have no investment in to insult people, that's a great look right?

You could, but I prefer to head to forums for games I want to like and have too much investment in, to try to convince people to advocate for change because the current state of affairs isn't something I enjoy; there are parts of the hobby I really like but the game itself needs to catch up to them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
People actually still think that there's any capacity for changing Codexes at this late stage..?

Peak clown world.
They're already printed. It's too late. It's done-zo.

They like being in denial about how fethed up their game has gotten.

Sunk cost fallacy in full display.

It's ok, instead I could just skulk around forums for games I don't like and have no investment in to insult people, that's a great look right?

You could, but I prefer to head to forums for games I want to like and have too much investment in, to try to convince people to advocate for change because the current state of affairs isn't something I enjoy; there are parts of the hobby I really like but the game itself needs to catch up to them.

Which is an admirable intent, so I'd argue you've been as targeted by the above sunk fallacy shade as anyone else who cares.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
People actually still think that there's any capacity for changing Codexes at this late stage..?

Peak clown world.
They're already printed. It's too late. It's done-zo.

They like being in denial about how fethed up their game has gotten.

Sunk cost fallacy in full display.

It's ok, instead I could just skulk around forums for games I don't like and have no investment in to insult people, that's a great look right?

You could, but I prefer to head to forums for games I want to like and have too much investment in, to try to convince people to advocate for change because the current state of affairs isn't something I enjoy; there are parts of the hobby I really like but the game itself needs to catch up to them.

Which is an admirable intent, so I'd argue you've been as targeted by the above sunk fallacy shade as anyone else who cares.

I didn't feel targeted by it; it seems to be addressed at people who won't acknowledge the flaws in the modern GW rules sets, rather than at people who are invested enough to want to fix them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
People actually still think that there's any capacity for changing Codexes at this late stage..?

Peak clown world.
They're already printed. It's too late. It's done-zo.

They like being in denial about how fethed up their game has gotten.

Sunk cost fallacy in full display.

It's ok, instead I could just skulk around forums for games I don't like and have no investment in to insult people, that's a great look right?

You could, but I prefer to head to forums for games I want to like and have too much investment in, to try to convince people to advocate for change because the current state of affairs isn't something I enjoy; there are parts of the hobby I really like but the game itself needs to catch up to them.

Which is an admirable intent, so I'd argue you've been as targeted by the above sunk fallacy shade as anyone else who cares.

I didn't feel targeted by it; it seems to be addressed at people who won't acknowledge the flaws in the modern GW rules sets, rather than at people who are invested enough to want to fix them.

It was aimed at me directly but I'm on record in this thread repeatedly saying the current direction isn't great, I'm not in any state of sunken fallacy or denial at the state of the game by saying that they will re-balance points and potentially rules post-codex production however! Again, flow of messages and responses is convoluted now, I know you didn't state that.

The problem is that there are a number of posters with parasocial relationships with GW who defend them past all reason.

Hecaton wrote:
The problem is that there are a number of posters with parasocial relationships with GW who defend them past all reason.

Again, you've historically tied me with that brush to the point of violating rule #1 in the past.

There's also a group who just exist to dump on everything and never once have anything positive to discuss, even in a corrective manner.

The point is if people feedback on the state of the game, no it won't change the printed books, that's obvious. But it might allow them to make better balance slates and faster updates.

That means constructive feedback, into the GW inbox or onto their social media. gaking on people or things on Dakka is not doing that, draining people boycott products or whatever is another aggressive "look at me" type response that's on here far too often.

Not everything is for everyone, but just taking endless potshots at other posters and dumping random spite into a forum with every single post archives feth all but making "the community" more divided and worsening reputations of the people, the site and the game to anyone who sees it.

If you're pissed, go email GW. If someone else isn't, don't take your pissed state out on them, let them enjoy what they enjoy.

Not aimed at you specifically Hecaton, general thought dump.

Hecaton wrote:
The problem is that there are a number of posters with parasocial relationships with GW who defend them past all reason.

There's also a number of people that's just as trapped in the same sort of parasocial relationship, but needs to constantly belabour how they are above it all and could quit at any time Their fundamental argument is a variant of 'everything sucks, and you suck for caring about anything' (aka Rick-and-Morty-style edgelordism) and is imho mostly coming from a bad and dark place - yes, things often suck, but wallowing in irony- and sarcasm-flavoured self-pity is just giving up with extra steps. If you want things to get better, the least you can do is complaining in a constructive, polite way - seething on forums and constant pity parties does nothing for the state of the hobby and turns the community into a miserable place full of people you don't want to deal with, and that's just something nobody needs. If you feel like you need to leave or things are no longer working out for you voicing that is fine and healthy, but some people seem to literally be trapped in some sort of cycle of abuse or addicted behaviour.

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The problem is that there are a number of posters with parasocial relationships with GW who defend them past all reason.

Again, you've historically tied me with that brush to the point of violating rule #1 in the past.

There's also a group who just exist to dump on everything and never once have anything positive to discuss, even in a corrective manner.

The point is if people feedback on the state of the game, no it won't change the printed books, that's obvious. But it might allow them to make better balance slates and faster updates.

That means constructive feedback, into the GW inbox or onto their social media. gaking on people or things on Dakka is not doing that, draining people boycott products or whatever is another aggressive "look at me" type response that's on here far too often.

Not everything is for everyone, but just taking endless potshots at other posters and dumping random spite into a forum with every single post archives feth all but making "the community" more divided and worsening reputations of the people, the site and the game to anyone who sees it.

If you're pissed, go email GW. If someone else isn't, don't take your pissed state out on them, let them enjoy what they enjoy.

Not aimed at you specifically Hecaton, general thought dump.

The problem is I doubt you send that much feedback to GW, and they definitely don't listen to it enough unless they're afraid it'll bomb their sales.

They don't even listen to their playtesters.

Dudeface wrote:

Not everything is for everyone, but just taking endless potshots at other posters and dumping random spite into a forum with every single post archives feth all but making "the community" more divided and worsening reputations of the people, the site and the game to anyone who sees it.

So why do you do it?

Hecaton wrote:
Well why should those options be pointed the same if they're different?

Sorry - I'm not ignoring posts. Just super busy atm and camping this week.

Knight lists typically have ~126 wounds at the moment. Two GG remove 2.2 or 1.7%. GG and GC removes 3, which is 2.3%. That extra 0.5% is an additional 10 points off the knights list. And that's if you roll average, but average is very forgiving of the very binary nature of outcomes ( either you wound or you don't - there is no such thing as 0.33 wounds in reality ).

Here's 50 rounds of shooting ( this is likely more rounds than you might shoot with them over the next 6 months -- if you play frequently ) from 2 GG and 1 GG and 1 GC using a dice roller.


The GC and GG managed to score more into Armigers ( 2.16 vs 3.32 ) than into the Knights ( 2.64 vs 2.56 ). This streakiness is that mental event that shapes how we might look at weapons - a traditional pitfall of D6 weapons ( e.g. the old Lascannon ).

That aside you have one setup removing an extra 20 or 30 points before they die. So let's say it's worth 10 and the GG is 5.

Below is a run on most of the tactical marine weapons ( long range, cover, on the move, 10,000 iterations -- still needs more QA as some stuff doesn't seem to be obeying wound breakpoints ). I put the LC, ML, and PC at 3s to hit, because their ranges are most likely to allow Heavy to be a factor without getting killed. Now we just valued the GC at 10 when facing into Knights. If we value a PG at 5 the PC feels pretty good at 10 in marines.

But then what's the value of the PC when facing all knights? It was worth 10, but now it should probably be 5. The converse should certainly be true with Grav into terminators. If those guns are worth 5 under certain considerations then their small arms should definitely get valued at less than 5. And in the circumstance of GG and GC into non-optimal targets the value is pretty close as to not warrant a point differential so then the GC is kind of worth 0 comparatively, isn't it?

How are you costing weapons? Just into their preferred targets? What happens if they face a mixed force - what is their value then? What about PG or Melta in half range? Cover? Stationary? What if it's hazardous?

GC into termies is ~.1% of an all termie army ( 2 points ). GG is ~.05% ( 1 point ). With the GC worth 5 and GG worth 0 under best conditions and worth basically nada under poor conditions the average cost is almost a rounding error.

So maybe you just don't sweat the small differentials that streaky dice might make irrelevant and let players pick the weapons they think fit their army's plan.

Or maybe you just don't like the various switches and want to use raw average math with no considerations at all ( the table below is a fraction of potential outcomes ). I don't that's a good approach to points, because it's a very basic tool to understanding game interactions. If you'd prefer to stick to that -- it's fine -- we just simply disagree.

Why is everything about Knights?!?!?!? Why why WHY? I don't even think you did this with an outcome in mind, you just did it and I don't understand it. Even if the sims/mathhammer didn't take you that long (though I could see coding the sims being a bit time consuming), writing it all up probably did. Why spend such time justifying a scenario that was incredibly skewed from the start? All this shows me is... against a particular (skewed) target, different weapons do have different values, which seems like it defeats your point?

I really don't get it, please explain your priors better.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Why is everything about Knights?!?!?!? Why why WHY? I don't even think you did this with an outcome in mind, you just did it and I don't understand it. Even if the sims/mathhammer didn't take you that long (though I could see coding the sims being a bit time consuming), writing it all up probably did. Why spend such time justifying a scenario that was incredibly skewed from the start? All this shows me is... against a particular (skewed) target, different weapons do have different values, which seems like it defeats your point?

I really don't get it, please explain your priors better.

It started as knights, but goes into more. Knights are pretty strong right now ( IK, anyway ) so it's a relevant consideration as is the inverse.

It boils down to this -- the "value" of say a heavy bolter changes based on what it shoots, right? It's more valuable into MEQ than into vehicles. It's worth some number of points against MEQ, but effectively 0 if it has to shoot tanks. Under which conditions do you value it? If you split it down the middle the points are going to be pretty negligible. Some games it will outperform it's cost and others it will not. So why sweat a couple of weapons in a squad of 10 guys? The GG and GC are close enough in non-optimal conditions to be a rounding error themselves.

So you say GC is worth 10 into skew and 0 into non-skew -- average that to 5. A GG is 5 into skew and 0 into non-skew -- average to 2.5. A tac squad already effectively pays 15 points ( 175 - ( 5 naked devs * 2 ) ) for it's 3 to 4 upgrades. So a double GG loadout is suffering by 2.5 points of "lost" upgrades.

I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Not everything is for everyone, but just taking endless potshots at other posters and dumping random spite into a forum with every single post archives feth all but making "the community" more divided and worsening reputations of the people, the site and the game to anyone who sees it.

So why do you do it?

Because I'm a less than perfect human so have occasional slips of judgement as anyone does. There are numerous posters who entire repertoire is slating GW and anyone who happens to not also want to slate GW in a very black and white fashion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The problem is I doubt you send that much feedback to GW, and they definitely don't listen to it enough unless they're afraid it'll bomb their sales.

They don't even listen to their playtesters.

I've emailed them twice total about directional stuff over the last decade or so which isn't as many as some I'm sure, but likely more than most actually do. Likewise I do always give fair comment in their annual (?) Survey, I always make sure to phrase it in a constructive manner though, try and make it a gak sandwich where I can as well. They maybe never read them but if I'm that motivated it at least makes me feel I've done my bit to tackle the problem I have.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.

To put it bluntly, what you do here is ass-backwards sophistry. You can arrive at any conclusion you want by assigning arbitrary value to things and then obfuscating the lot of it with pseudo-accurarcy in form of lengthy calculations that serve no deeper purpose. Yes, 1% of a list is not something worth 'stressing', but these percentages are everywhere, and accumulate. Yes, you can construct extreme outlier scenarios where a loadout that is strictly better in 90-95% of cases is only as good as the lesser one, or maybe even worse, but that has no bearing on averages. I don't know if you're making these wild jumps between nitpicky tablework and 'just assume 5 here, and 10 there, and bob's your uncle' out of motivated reasoning or if you're successfully confused yourself with the enormeous amount of writing you have dedicated to this issue that is immediately obvious to most people, but the hoop-jumping and shadow-boxing you're doing here is just stunningly, utterly amazing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Why is everything about Knights?!?!?!? Why why WHY? I don't even think you did this with an outcome in mind, you just did it and I don't understand it. Even if the sims/mathhammer didn't take you that long (though I could see coding the sims being a bit time consuming), writing it all up probably did. Why spend such time justifying a scenario that was incredibly skewed from the start? All this shows me is... against a particular (skewed) target, different weapons do have different values, which seems like it defeats your point?

I really don't get it, please explain your priors better.

It started as knights, but goes into more. Knights are pretty strong right now ( IK, anyway ) so it's a relevant consideration as is the inverse.

It boils down to this -- the "value" of say a heavy bolter changes based on what it shoots, right? It's more valuable into MEQ than into vehicles. It's worth some number of points against MEQ, but effectively 0 if it has to shoot tanks. Under which conditions do you value it? If you split it down the middle the points are going to be pretty negligible. Some games it will outperform it's cost and others it will not. So why sweat a couple of weapons in a squad of 10 guys? The GG and GC are close enough in non-optimal conditions to be a rounding error themselves.

So you say GC is worth 10 into skew and 0 into non-skew -- average that to 5. A GG is 5 into skew and 0 into non-skew -- average to 2.5. A tac squad already effectively pays 15 points ( 175 - ( 5 naked devs * 2 ) ) for it's 3 to 4 upgrades. So a double GG loadout is suffering by 2.5 points of "lost" upgrades.

I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.

How many units do you take?
1% on one thing isn't worth worrying about.
But 1% each across ten units is. And there's still the difference between a Predator with sponsons and one without, or a naked Tac squad vs. one with bells and whistles.

Dudeface wrote:

There's also a group who just exist to dump on everything and never once have anything positive to discuss, even in a corrective manner.

The point is if people feedback on the state of the game, no it won't change the printed books, that's obvious. But it might allow them to make better balance slates and faster updates.

That means constructive feedback, into the GW inbox or onto their social media. gaking on people or things on Dakka is not doing that, draining people boycott products or whatever is another aggressive "look at me" type response that's on here far too often.

I do email GW or otherwise contact them. I also discuss things here, because that's what this place is for discussing. You don't get to tell me to shut up about it; that's above your station. Telling me that I don't deserve to have an opinion that goes against daddy James Workshop is very disrespectful.

The fact that you're against boycotts says a lot - you want people to express their discontent in ways that don't inconvenience GW at all tells me you just don't want the discontent expressed at all.

Dudeface wrote:
Not everything is for everyone, but just taking endless potshots at other posters and dumping random spite into a forum with every single post archives feth all but making "the community" more divided and worsening reputations of the people, the site and the game to anyone who sees it.

Good. If the game is bad (as it is right now), people should avoid it. Go play a different minis game.

Dudeface wrote:
If you're pissed, go email GW. If someone else isn't, don't take your pissed state out on them, let them enjoy what they enjoy.

When someone makes a thread on this site, they need to be able to handle disagreement. If you can't, you're free to log out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:
There's also a number of people that's just as trapped in the same sort of parasocial relationship, but needs to constantly belabour how they are above it all and could quit at any time Their fundamental argument is a variant of 'everything sucks, and you suck for caring about anything' (aka Rick-and-Morty-style edgelordism) and is imho mostly coming from a bad and dark place - yes, things often suck, but wallowing in irony- and sarcasm-flavoured self-pity is just giving up with extra steps. If you want things to get better, the least you can do is complaining in a constructive, polite way - seething on forums and constant pity parties does nothing for the state of the hobby and turns the community into a miserable place full of people you don't want to deal with, and that's just something nobody needs. If you feel like you need to leave or things are no longer working out for you voicing that is fine and healthy, but some people seem to literally be trapped in some sort of cycle of abuse or addicted behaviour.

I mean, I see that when someone has a well thought out and well-reasoned critique of what GW is doing and then someone responds with "who cares, it's toy soldiers."

If GW did better work these people wouldn't be in this cycle you describe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.

When it exists across multiple units, that 1% adds up to a significant power differential between two armies.

And what's more, points can handle this too; stressing about it is entirely optional. Arguing for a PL-like system is just making this problem worse.

Hecaton wrote:


I do email GW or otherwise contact them. I also discuss things here, because that's what this place is for discussing. You don't get to tell me to shut up about it; that's above your station. Telling me that I don't deserve to have an opinion that goes against daddy James Workshop is very disrespectful.

The fact that you're against boycotts says a lot - you want people to express their discontent in ways that don't inconvenience GW at all tells me you just don't want the discontent expressed at all.

I aren't telling people to stop discussing things, what I'm saying is people who only ever post negative critiques without any measure of a solution or constructive feedback isn't adding anything. Have an opinion against the product or the company by all means, but often there are posts with a lack of discussion at all.

Boycotts damage game stores, they don't really get any message across unless the collective community buys into it. It will hurt innocent shop owners more than it'll hurt GW without fail.

Good. If the game is bad (as it is right now), people should avoid it. Go play a different minis game.

This is what I mean, you present a negative opinion as fact and no remedial statements.

When someone makes a thread on this site, they need to be able to handle disagreement. If you can't, you're free to log out.

Again you can debate, discuss or whatever but if someone says I like X, and your simple response is "X is bad, you're an idiot". That's being an donkey-cave, not discussing.

I mean, I see that when someone has a well thought out and well-reasoned critique of what GW is doing and then someone responds with "who cares, it's toy soldiers."

Conversely we also see people making evidence based subjective statements and being met with "and you expect GW to do better, more fool you" type responses.

If GW did better work these people wouldn't be in this cycle you describe.

If GW did better, there's people here who will still be here just spouting negative drivel for the sakes of it.

Dudeface wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The problem is I doubt you send that much feedback to GW, and they definitely don't listen to it enough unless they're afraid it'll bomb their sales.

They don't even listen to their playtesters.

I've emailed them twice total about directional stuff over the last decade or so which isn't as many as some I'm sure, but likely more than most actually do. Likewise I do always give fair comment in their annual (?) Survey, I always make sure to phrase it in a constructive manner though, try and make it a gak sandwich where I can as well. They maybe never read them but if I'm that motivated it at least makes me feel I've done my bit to tackle the problem I have.

Here's something you don't realize. Even if I don't say it every time I do it, I send a fairly polite email every time something is found to be broken or there's unintended interactions, whether I find it or this forum does or Reddit does or anyone in general.

Ultimately they don't care and only listen when they think it'll affect their pockets. You think the nerfs to Votaan were just a coincidence when there were talks of boycotting and/or banning the entire army from tournaments and stores?

That's why I find your anti-botcott mentality partly hilarious and sad. We as fans of the IP need to demand more than just mediocrity at its best or below when they release their schlock and expect us to buy it regardless. Kirby saying that the hobby = buying GW products never left as a mentality.

Dudeface wrote:
I aren't telling people to stop discussing things, what I'm saying is people who only ever post negative critiques without any measure of a solution or constructive feedback isn't adding anything. Have an opinion against the product or the company by all means, but often there are posts with a lack of discussion at all.

Boycotts damage game stores, they don't really get any message across unless the collective community buys into it. It will hurt innocent shop owners more than it'll hurt GW without fail.

...except you could buy something else from the game store. If you don't have some irresistible compulsion to buy GW stuff and only GW stuff because you worship the company for some reason...

And it's very convenient for you to say that no boycott of GW is possible because it will hurt precious LGS's more than them. Almost like you don't want people to stop buying GW products, and are flailing around for a justification for it...

Dudeface wrote:
This is what I mean, you present a negative opinion as fact and no remedial statements.

I've talked about "remedial statements" all over this thread. Re-implement a points-like system is one of them. You can go looking for it.

Dudeface wrote:
Again you can debate, discuss or whatever but if someone says I like X, and your simple response is "X is bad, you're an idiot". That's being an donkey-cave, not discussing.

No, that's Daed and the other pro-PL crowd's argument. I gave good reasons for mine.

Dudeface wrote:

Conversely we also see people making evidence based subjective statements and being met with "and you expect GW to do better, more fool you" type responses.

I mean that kind of is what you suggest; you're saying no criticism, no boycotts, this state of the game being gak will continue forever and to want more is wrong.

Dudeface wrote:
If GW did better, there's people here who will still be here just spouting negative drivel for the sakes of it.

There will always be some donkey-caves, but the vast majority of people are calling GW out for good reasons and would stop if GW stopped doing those things. The issue is, you don't see those good reasons because you don't approach the game for its merits. See my earlier comment about some people having a parasocial relationship with GW, not a customer/business relationship.